Seòmar agus comataidhean

This morning, the front pages of the Daily Record and The Scotsman carried horror stories about people not getting ambulances. They are real-life stories. How prepared are we for this winter? Even before Covid, the NHS struggled in winter—we all know that, and I have dealt with it in various forums. How prepared are we, given that we are in a pandemic and that people will be out and about so we can expect issues with things such as flu? Should the public be concerned about getting through the winter?

Is there clarity across the licensing trade about the measures that are already in place? A few weeks ago, I was in a restaurant and the rules were clear: when you went in, you had to have a mask on—there were signs telling you that—and you were able to use the app on your phone to clock in and register for test and protect. However, I have been in a couple of bars where there was none of that whatsoever. There seem to be similar differences on public transport and in other areas, so it is not just an issue for the licensed trade. My concern is that a lot of the measures that we have in place, such as social distancing and face coverings, seem to be on the wane. Do you find that? Is clear guidance and support available for publicans to ensure that the laws that are in place are able to help in the way they are meant to?

You are right to continue to make the arguments that you put forward, just as the Scottish Football Association is doing. This should not be a question of just accepting things.

How is the licensed trade recovering? Are we getting back to pre-Covid levels of jobs? I assume that you will overcome the passport stuff quite easily, but are there bigger challenges for the trade in the post-Covid period?

Has the SPFL considered that if the objective is to encourage younger people to take the vaccine, you should be on the front foot and having discussions with clubs about how to do that? Have any football players been prominent in refusing to get the vaccine? Could clubs do more to encourage younger people to take the vaccine? Is this the best way for the Scottish FA to improve vaccine uptake among football fans, or are there other ways that you could work with the Government to achieve the same objective?

Are other panel members clear on what the Government expects to achieve? In the industries that you represent, which are football—I assume there are around four clubs in Scotland that get crowds of more than 10,000—and nightclubs, was there a problem in understanding what the Government is trying to achieve? Do you believe that its approach is supported by evidence that those specific sectors are large spreaders and that there is a clear risk?

I heard what the Deputy First Minister said about a proportionate approach. It will have to be proportionate because, with the timescales that you have given, I am not sure that it could be anything else.

I have a few questions, one of which is on vaccine take-up. Professor Leitch says that it is really good, but what is the up-to-date position on it? What work is being done? Have you identified where there are specific problems? What analysis has been done where there is not the same level of vaccine take-up? For example, it has been suggested that there is lower take-up among people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and young people in general, although the take-up figures that were given recently for people returning to St Andrews university were way above anything that I had expected, so that is not true of all young people. There is also a suggestion that there is lower take-up among people from certain ethnic backgrounds and communities, and refugees and asylum seekers.

Where do we have such issues? Is the Government doing targeting and asking why there is lower take-up in certain areas and communities? It would be useful to get a response to that question and to see something in writing that sets out the approach.

Thank you. I assumed that the Law Society would want to ensure that the legislation that is going through Parliament is first of all clear; secondly, that it is supported by evidence; and thirdly, that it is going through the most appropriate route.

If the Government comes back in two weeks and says that the scheme will be extended to attendances of more than 8,000 or 6,000 or 4,000 at a football game, would we be satisfied that it has gone through the correct measures? Was the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee correct when it said that the scientific evidence for that step is not there and that it should come through primary legislation so that it can be properly scrutinised and understood by the public?

My question is for Dr McMillan. With regard to how the legislation has been brought forward, are you satisfied that the Government has clearly set out the evidence and the science that sits behind what it proposes? When the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee at Westminster looked at the matter from the UK Government perspective, it concluded that the scientific evidence was not there and that such a major step should require primary legislation. Given that the legislation was rushed through and Parliament was divided along political lines, are you satisfied that the evidence has been provided?

Do you believe that the objective of the legislation, as well as what the Government thinks it will achieve, is clear to the public? Is it clear how the Government will measure the outcomes that it is trying to achieve? Has the Government brought forward the scientific evidence to back that up and to demonstrate that the scheme is the best way to achieve those outcomes?

Do you accept that there is evidence that football matches are a serious risk? The First Minister said that it was considering vaccination passports or much more restrictive measures such as cancelling games. Do you accept that?